The Jharkhand High Court has rejected an application for anticipatory bail against a petitioner accused of exploiting a consensual extramarital relationship to commit digital abuse, including creation of fake social media accounts, dissemination of obscene photographs, and threats of public exposure to extort money and force resignation. The Court held that the petitioner’s conduct transcended mere personal conduct and constituted a calculated violation of privacy and dignity under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court. The core legal holding is that consensual relationships do not confer any right to exploit another’s privacy, dignity, or vulnerability for digital harassment, blackmail, or reputational damage. The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence of offences under Sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 314, 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 356(2), 351(2), 308(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66C, 66D, 67, 67A of the IT Act, 2000. No anticipatory bail was granted due to the seriousness of the allegations, risk of evidence tampering, and potential obstruction of investigation.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, a married man employed in Delhi, was in a consensual extramarital relationship with the informant, a married woman employed at Amity University in Ranchi, since 2021. The relationship began at the Frankfinn Institute where the petitioner worked as an accountant. Over three years, they exchanged financial support, traveled together, and maintained intimate communication via WhatsApp and photographs. The petitioner moved to Delhi for work, which reportedly caused emotional distress to the informant.
In November 2024, the informant filed a cybercrime FIR in Ranchi alleging that the petitioner had misused her identity to create fake Instagram and email accounts. The petitioner allegedly used his mobile number to create the email account siddharthloveu@gmail.com and sent defamatory and obscene photographs of the informant to her employer, including the Vice-Chancellor, with intent to damage her career. The Instagram account, created in January 2025, uploaded explicit images and sent friend requests to her relatives and colleagues without consent. The account’s username was changed 25 times, indicating deliberate obfuscation.
The informant also alleged that the petitioner demanded ₹25 lakh or her divorce from her husband, threatening to circulate the photographs if she refused. An independent witness, Amit Kumar Gupta, corroborated these threats and confirmed receipt of obscene material. The petitioner claimed the relationship was consensual and that financial transactions and shared hotel bookings proved mutual trust. He denied posting any objectionable content and argued the FIR was filed out of personal vendetta.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether the existence of a consensual extramarital relationship negates the criminality of subsequent digital exploitation, blackmail, and violation of privacy under the BNS, 2023 and the IT Act, 2000. Specifically, can a petitioner claim anticipatory bail when the alleged offences stem from abuse of trust inherent in a personal relationship, rather than from a stranger’s intrusion?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual and mutual, evidenced by WhatsApp chats, shared finances, and joint travel. She contended that the informant, being a married adult, was fully aware of the nature of the relationship and bore equal responsibility. The financial transfers, including ₹4 lakh from the petitioner, demonstrated goodwill, not coercion. The counsel emphasized that no morphed or obscene images were posted by the petitioner, and that the FIR was delayed and motivated by personal grievance. She cited the absence of direct forensic proof linking the petitioner to the fake accounts and urged the Court to consider the petitioner’s clean record and non-fleeing nature.
For the Respondent/State
The State and informant’s counsel countered that consent to a personal relationship does not imply consent to digital exploitation. They relied on the case diary, which showed the petitioner’s mobile number was used to create the fake accounts, and the independent witness’s statement corroborating threats and transmission of obscene material. They highlighted that even after the FIR was registered, the petitioner continued to send defamatory content, indicating intent to obstruct justice. The counsel emphasized that Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act criminalize identity theft and impersonation, while Section 67A penalizes publishing sexually explicit material. The State argued that the petitioner’s conduct was part of a well-orchestrated campaign to blackmail and destroy the informant’s professional life.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that consensual intimacy immunizes conduct that later turns abusive. It held that the relationship, however consensual, did not grant any legal right to violate the informant’s privacy, dignity, or professional standing. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s actions were not incidental but systematic: creation of fake accounts, repeated username changes, dissemination of explicit material to third parties, and explicit threats of public exposure.
"The relationship between the informant and petitioner cannot be termed as a ‘friendship simpliciter’ wherein financial assistance was extended by one friend to another. Instead, it prima facie appears that the petitioner has exploited the relationship under the guise of a social media account. If a person is in friendship, it does not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity."
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s conduct met the threshold for offences under Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (impersonation), and Section 67A (publishing sexually explicit material) of the IT Act, 2000, as well as analogous provisions under the BNS, 2023. The Court dismissed the claim that the informant’s maturity absolved the petitioner, stating: "Assertions to the effect that the informant, being a married woman, was mature and intelligent enough to understand the significance and consequences of her action, is a specious argument that cannot absolve the petitioner of the allegations levelled against him."
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, emphasizing that anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC) is an extraordinary remedy and must be denied where the allegations involve a well-orchestrated conspiracy that could be obstructed by pre-arrest release. The Court found that granting bail would impede the investigation into the digital trail, including the 25 username changes and the forensic link between the petitioner’s mobile and the fake accounts.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a critical precedent: consensual personal relationships do not serve as a shield against criminal liability for digital abuse. Practitioners must now recognize that even in cases involving prior intimacy, the misuse of private information, creation of fake profiles, and threats of exposure constitute independent, non-bailable offences under the IT Act and BNS. The ruling reinforces that digital privacy rights are inviolable, regardless of the nature of the prior relationship.
For defence counsel, this case underscores the futility of relying solely on the consensual nature of a relationship to seek anticipatory bail where digital crimes are alleged. The burden shifts to the accused to prove absence of intent to harm, defame, or blackmail - not merely the existence of a prior relationship. Prosecutors may now cite this judgment to oppose bail in similar cyber blackmail cases, particularly where there is evidence of post-FIR conduct or third-party dissemination.
The judgment also clarifies that forensic evidence linking a device to digital activity - such as IP logs, mobile number associations, and account creation timestamps - will carry substantial weight. Courts are unlikely to grant anticipatory bail where the accused’s conduct demonstrates a pattern of escalation and obstruction.
